From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Nightline Poll

September 30, 2004 8:44 PM

Who won the debate? 45% Kerry. 36% Bush, 17% Tie

UPDATE: Gallup: 53% Kerry, 37% Bush, 10% undecided

46% had a more favorable view of Kerry afterward, 21% Bush.

More from the archive in Bush, John Kerry, Politics.

Nightline Poll (09.30.2004)

Next Entry: Hannity is desperate (09.30.2004)
Previous Entry: The Debate -- analysis (09.30.2004)

Read the 15 comments.

vetfordean:

Jim:
Thank You for being here! Wanted to draw your finely tuned attention to a piece in clevescene.com by Pete Kotz, "Country Club Swagger". It nails mr. badass is little sef, and maybe gives you creative types more headers for a new round of bullshit cowboy flics. Keep it Up! TMA

Fri Oct 1 2004 10:47 AM


Anonymous:

Wow, Kerry opens his mouth and causes ANOTHER international incident. Maybe he can demonstrate a little MOORE nuance concerning foreign relations:


President of Poland Calls Kerry 'Immoral'
Reacting to John Kerry's omission of Polands efforts in Iraq, President of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski said, "I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition."

When asked about Kerry's derogation of non-U.S. coalition countries fighting in Iraq, Kwasniewski said: "I don't think it's an ignorance. Anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the UK and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It's highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world."

"That's why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished", President Kwasniewski commented Kerry's speech during the debate.

"Perhaps Mr Kerry, continues Kwasniewski, thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq."

Poland has contributed greatly to the efforts in Iraq. Their troop contribution tops 6,500 and 13 have given the ultimate sacrifice, in order to assist the United States liberate Iraq.

Mon Oct 4 2004 8:27 AM


Independent Jones:

Um, actually an article today state the following:

"Currently, Poland has 2,500 troops committed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, but would reduce that number to 1,500 January 2005, the spokesman said..."

The article is here http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/iraq.polandtroops/index.html

Mon Oct 4 2004 11:35 AM


Independent Jones:

That's less than 2% of the troops we have committed. Yes, a very powerful coalition we have...

Mon Oct 4 2004 11:47 AM


Anonymous:

The Polish contingent is part of a 9,200 Polish-led multinational division, and is supplemented by soldiers from a number of eastern European countries and comprised of Ukrainian Bulgarian, Hungarian, Romanian, Latvia, Slovakian and Lithuanian troops. Using your numbers the Polish congregate makes up 10% of the forces in Iraq.

The Poles are about 2,500 soldiers but their leadership fielded an additional 7000 troops. That's a full field division that Kerry wants to raise by using the draft.


Meanwhile Kerry hopes to entice the French and Germans to join a multinational peace force by telling them this is the wrong war at the wrong time in as addition to being a quagmire. With that kind of advertising I'm sure they'll come running.

The French won't join anyway, since Polish troops in Iraq found four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles (Rolands) which were built in 2003. So now its the "Oil for Food, Palaces & Missiles" program that the UN was operating.

Mon Oct 4 2004 12:10 PM


Independent Jones:

You know, I'll bet that when Bush is out of office, many other countries will jump at the chance to help in Iraq, because they will know that there is someone running our side whose head doesn't regularly vacation in his ass. What you don't seem to realize it these countries like France (whom I have no use for), Germany, Spain, etc., don't hate America, they hate George W. Bush. Because he is arogant and self-serving.

Two more questions no-name:
1) Where does it say that Kerry plans to use the draft to create a new field division? I'd like to see some support for that statement, that is actual support, no baseless conjecture.

2) When can we expect to see no-name down at the army recruiting office enlisting to fight with his brothers and sisters on the frontlines of this war he/she sees as so valuable and important to our continued liberty? Put up or shut up.

Mon Oct 4 2004 1:09 PM


Right Wing Robby:

Kerry has mentioned the draft.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040922_1296.html

Chuck Rangel(democrat) has also:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040922_1296.html

I havent seen a single republican mention the draft, yet are accused by the left consistently as being for it.

Mon Oct 4 2004 3:11 PM


Anonymous:

Go to John Kerry.com

http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

As quoted from his own web site:

"As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service."

Since I too can juggle more then one thought in my head: Kerry say we need more troops in Iraq (live debate 9-30-04) + Kerry on his own web site calls for manditory service requirements to qualify for college = new draft under John Kerry if elected president.

Mon Oct 4 2004 3:46 PM


Anonymous:

As for being at the recruiting office, visited it in May 1986 and served 2 years active duty and 4 years in reserve.

Mon Oct 4 2004 3:48 PM


Jim Gilliam:

this is blatantly misleading...

"manditory service requirements"

Kerry is requiring *community service* of high schoolers, not being drafted into the army.

And Kerry wants to offer those who commit to 2 years of national service (americorps or military) the equivalent of four years state college tuition to be used for college, job training or a small business. A welcome refinement of the GI bill.

All of this is designed as a secular incentive for people to help each other. Beats promised riches in heaven if you ask me.

Mon Oct 4 2004 4:30 PM


Independent Jones:

No Name,

Much respect to you for service to our country. Forgive my attitude, however I have come upon more than my fair share of rich, white, yuppy larvae who beat the drum of war with Iraq, but wouldn't dare actually going to fight it. My acid tongue got the better of me. Apologies, if I offended. I more than happy to admit it if I've gone to far. My father was a gunner on a chopper in the Navy during Vietnam. While there he took schrapnel, was shot in the knee, and watched several of his friends burn to death in a helicopter crash. I have nothing but respect for nations soldiers, sailors, pilots and marines.

No Name & Right Wing,

Interesting bits on the draft thing. I try to keep up on everything, but I overlooked this. The draft is something I disagree with. I think our armed forces should be voluntary. However, if I were drafted I would serve, as it truly is a priviledge to live in this country, regardless of who is in office.

I'm really not a bad guy and I truly am independent, I just like to debate, and since you guys are posting here, I figure you're up for it.

No hard feelings, we're all in this together.

Indy Jones

Mon Oct 4 2004 4:31 PM


Anonymous:

Call it what you want, but "mandatory service requirement" sounds like the draft to me. Nowhere does the website say it is limited to community service, in fact in the same subject area concerning college it says:

"As President, John Kerry will call on young people to help strengthen America's security and address unmet community needs. In return, he believes we should offer young Americans and their families the opportunity for a college education. A Kerry Administration will offer Americans the chance to earn the equivalent of their state's four-year public college tuition in exchange for two years of service. If service members decide not to go to college, their award can be used for job training or to help start a business. John Kerry will set a national goal of half a million young people serving their nation every year within ten years."


Security & military could easily be substituted for each other, one must recall this is the party that refered to taxes as "contributions". Remember there are two bills in congress right now, and both where introduced by democrats. Reading in detail this proposal being put forth is not only a draft but insanely expanded version of it. Not only is he hoping to call young people into service for the "security" of the nation but to also perform basic social services. Kind of wonder where in the Hell the constitution that power is given to the government.

If you take the "narrow" view that Jim fosters it sounds like the "reeducation" programs sponsored in Cambodia and in China during the Cultural Revolution.

Tue Oct 5 2004 6:09 AM


Anonymous:

Jones: A sharp debate keeps the mind sharp. I've learned things about both parties that I didn't know, good and bad. That's one thing I really appreciate about this site, too many other sites allow no deviation from the administrators view.

Tue Oct 5 2004 6:16 AM


Jim Gilliam:

But there's an incentive attached. It's still not obligatory. This is Kerry's attempt to avoid a draft. If he can set up the incentives appropriately, maybe that will be enough.

And maybe it won't.

Tue Oct 5 2004 8:31 AM


colligan:

Kerry is an idiot. God forbid he would have been president when 9-11 happened. We would have been worse off. We need to all pull together during this tradegy and quit bashing our president. The people CHOSE him, so face the facts and move on.

Mon Sep 19 2005 9:36 PM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart